Author
Topic: A wise lens upgrade? (Read 7728 times)

I'm going to respectfully disagree with others about the 70-200 f/4. It is a great portrait lens. Will you wish you had IS and an f/2.8? Perhaps, but you need to consider your upper price limit. Both of those lenses at $900 refurbished is a great deal. What's more, that 70-200 f/4 L also makes a fantastic landscape lens. You'll know what I mean once you start using it for that purpose.

Thanks, Beav, I'm with you on this.

I still can't find the source, but I recall Roger at LensRentals writing somewhere that the 70-200 f/4.0 non-IS is slightly sharper than the IS version. On his site his take is "...one of the sharpest zooms made." My take is that while "technical specs" and such may rank it not as high, seeing those differences in the real world is mostly fantasy. I'd agree you will probably see a difference with the f/2.8 II, but such difference is not worth over $1500 for anyone but very top professionals.

I've had the f/4.0 non-IS for several years now and it would be my choice for what the OP mentions. It's perfect for anything from a tripod -- e.g., portrait and landscape. It's weaknesses are the non-IS and the not-so-wide aperture. My experience is it's great handheld outside in good light. It's sharp throught it's entire focal range at any aperture. Overall it approaches my 135 f/2.0 in image quality.

The OP also said he wants wider, and you don't get wider putting all your money into the 70-200 F/4.0 IS version. The 17-40 is the answer there, especially landscapes. I like the 17-40 and use it a lot. If you pay attention to what you're doing with it, you'll get great results. First, you do need to get smaller than f/4.0 -- I stay at at least f/5.6 or smaller. The distortion on the wide end can give you some clunkers if you're not paying attention -- I made the mistake of doing a hasty portrait (it was on the camera) of a man holding a baby. Too close, his hand is large out of proportion to the rest of the image. On the other hand, I do like that distortion in some images, especially landscape. Finally, I think it gets soft on the long end, so I stay under 35mm.

Anyway, I think the OP's initial take is the right one for him. He'll make a mistake if he listens to gearheads who will have him spend more money for something he doesn't need that may by 2% "better" theoretically.

Logged

You're offended? Oh, really! Life IS offense -- get used to it.

canon rumors FORUM

Personally, I would not rid myself of a general purpose lens. I'd keep the 24-105 and save for a 70-200 L IS or 70-300 L IS. (Or the 200mm 2.8 prime) After that you can start expanding on the wide end. In the meanwhile, If you mainly want wider for landscapes, you can consider shooting multirow panorama in situations where your 24mm isn't wide enough.

I have an offer on the table to sell my 24-105 for about $720. I love this lens but I have been looking to go a little wider for landscapes and also a little longer for portrait work. With Canon's current refurbished pricing I could get both the 17-40 f/4L and 70-200 (non-IS) f/4L for about $900.

This means I would achieve all my goals of having a wider lens, longer lens, and I would still have the 50 to fill the difference all for only about $200 out of pocket. I am curious if anybody has enough experience with any of these lenses to confirm that it would be a worthwhile deal for me or if I should hang onto the 24-105 and stick with my current setup.

I struggled over similar situation a few months ago. I thought I wouldn't need 24-105 anymore. I bought 17-40L and tried it for a month. I kind of liked it, but it couldn't serve as my general purpose lens. Meanwhile I already sold my 24-105. I missed it so much after it's gone. And guess what? I repurchased it again. I could've given Tamron a try but I really don't prefer third party lens if given a choice. My repurchase price is the same as the sale price of my previous lens. I did lose some commission though.

I do wish I could go wider. But I'm going to wait a little bit this time. 24mm is wide enough for me most of the time.

For portrait, maybe you could get an 85 1.8. or 100 f2. They are both awesome. The 135L no doubt is even better but I don't know if it fits your budget.

So to summarize, I'd keep what you have right now. Get a portrait lens such as 85 1.8 or 100 f2. For landscape, save up and get 17-40 later. Don't get rid of the 24-105.